Global Warming: Startling New...uh...Paragraph!

It's always tickling to browse the internet in search of the raw hyperbole that makes up the headlines of the global warming movement. Here's an example I found on the ENN (Environmental News Network) website where a member of the National Academy of Sciences calls on critics of global warming to apologize to his children for the grief they've caused them:

Their [his children's] world is going to be hotter than our world, unbearably so in some places. The weather is going to be more violent and less predictable. Precipitation patterns will be different, leading to increased flooding in some areas and droughts in others. Snowpack in the mountains is going to shrink and glaciers are going to disappear. It will be harder to grow enough food or provide enough fresh water for all. Entire ecosystems will be threatened; with humans, animals, and plants struggling to adjust. Indeed, global climate change is already here and it looks worse than we anticipated.

So let's take this step by step, shall we?

"Their [his children's] world is going to be hotter than our world, unbearably so in some places."

It already is. Has this guy ever been out of his air conditioned lab? Perhaps the best thing the average environmentalist could do is go outside sometime!

"The weather is going to be more violent and less predictable. "

...And watch the nightly forecast!

"Precipitation patterns will be different..."

It'll come down in rings and argyles tomorrow. OK? And...

"leading to increased flooding in some areas and droughts in others."

So, more of the same. Hm.

"Snowpack in the mountains is going to shrink and glaciers are going to disappear."

Last remnants of Noah's flood gone. Got it.

"It will be harder to grow enough food..."

Genesis 3:19 "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Sure, I agree with that.

"...or provide enough fresh water for all."

What's it cost to send a guy on that Russian space flight? Cuz' I saw pictures once and there was alot of blue!

"Entire ecosystems will be threatened;"

And that's what kills things: threats. And you can't make threats post 9/11. It's stalking, or even eco-terrorism. No wait, that's PETA and ELF.

"with humans, animals, and plants struggling to adjust."

Moved to Utah. Man! Don't I know!! Butchyano, ya' gotta' evolve.

"Indeed, global climate change is already here and it looks worse than we anticipated."

Well, that wasn't so bad, now was it? Let's see, should I go skiing in the mountains tonight, or biking in the hot West Desert?

Variation: Sub-species

So what do these have in common?

Alvord cutthroat trout
Bonneville cutthroat trout
Coastal cutthroat trout
Colorado River cutthroat trout
Greenback cutthroat trout
Lahontan cutthroat trout
Rio Grande cutthroat trout
Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout
Westslope cutthroat trout
Yellowfin cutthroat trout
Yellowstone cutthroat trout

If you have a keen eye, you might have noticed that they are all, yes that's right, cutthroat trout!! Well, since you're on a roll, see if you can figure out this next one:

What do all these have in common?

Adriatic trout
Marmorata trout
Flathead trout
Brown trout
Ohrid trout
Sevan trout
Apache trout
Cutthroat trout
Gila trout
Golden trout
Rainbow trout
Aurora trout
Brook trout
Bull trout
Dolly Varden trout
Lake trout
Silver trout

Wow! You're on your game today. They're all trout! So why all the various species and subspecies of trout? In the end, aren't they all just...trout?

Well first, you've got these guys called Ichthyologists who do nothing all day long except studying fish. Anytime a topic receives that kind of attention by Harvard brain-washed scientists, it's going to be a bit over analyzed. I'm not really against the study of these fish, or even their categorization and sub-categorization that has become commonplace in the world of Biology.

All my objections come along in the second reason biologists of differing flavors tend to sub-divide species into smaller and smaller groups. See, it isn't very compelling when someone busts in the room and shrieks, "There are only 450 million trout left in the entire world!!!! We must do something!!!!!". However, when they call a press conference to lament the reduction in the number of Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout to only a few hundred thousand due largely to human interference, that grabs the headlines!

I think that the trout anology closely parallels the global warming trend, er...menace, ...er...crisis! Above all, most scientists just want to be worshipped. I tried to find a better word, but that's what it comes down to. They want to be obeyed unquestioningly, thought to be all wise, imputed with only the purest motives, and as famous, quoted, and discussed as deity!

They said the earth was cooling, people bought sweaters. They said the earth was warming, people ate more ice cream. They said there was climate change, but that wasn't even actionable. So what is a poor scientist to do? In search for relevance, they did what many children do when discussing their fathers: they engaged in a tit-for-tat to see which scientist could grab and hold the headlines.

They all sought the title of "foremost expert on climate change". And as the drive-by media is prone to do, they continually shoved the microphone into the face of the most dramatic alarmist. Scientist #1 said that global warming was happening, possibly at a rate of 1/10 of a degree per century; and people yawned. Scientist #2 said it was happening at a rate of 3 degrees per century; and ratings went up a bit. Reports became more dramatic and more alarmist until someone said that in the next 50 years, half of all species on earth would become extinct; and every news agency on earth carried the story!!!

But even that wasn't enough. Some out-of-step, but trend-following moron went and declared that it was just too late, that the damage was done and we must all now sit and wait for our impending doom. The room went silent and everyone just stared at each other. Then they all declared with one voice that the guy who said it was just an extremist.

Why? Why was he an extremist, but not the guy that said we had 50 years? Now can people who deal in billions of years really quibble over a 50 year gaff? Oooooh! Because if it's too late, then there's no need for scientists, no point in signing the Kyoto Accord, no need to spend billions of dollars on more stringent emissions standards, no need to waste further news cycles covering the next one-upist. We might as well eat, drink and be merry with what little time, and few trees we have left! I mean, what headline could be more alarming than "too late"? I know, "Scientist: Global Warming May Cause World-Wide Flood!!" Nah.

If you sub-divide species into smaller and smaller classes (see "smaller class sizes are good" by the NEA), a slight fluxuation in numbers of any one sub-species has a much greater impact than if it were rolled up into the world population.

Imagine the headlines if these sorts of tactis were used on the human population: "harvardous enlightenus conneticus americanus makes the endangered species list; traditional culling curbed in light of new evidence!"

Missing Link: Or Missing Chain

Darwinists always talk about finding the "missing link". This puts into the minds of readers and conversationalists these two or three long segments of chain that lack only a single link or so to become one harmonious, singular chain. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Image some company builds a mile-tall concrete pillar to the bottom of the ocean floor somewhere between Europe and the continental United States, and puts a 10-foot long segment of road on top of the pillar, complete with yellow lane stripes and a light signal. While conservationists would certainly decry the traffic signal as "light pollution", the company could hardly claim to have constructed the first intercontinental Pan-European highway!

Yet, evolutionists with a million "missing links" yet to fill, hold a cereal bowl full of disconnected chain links in their hand and celebrate profusely when someone walks in the room and drops another disconnected link into the bowl, marking the near completeness of the chain.

What's worse, genetics has further complicated their quest to build their chain. What if one of the links was bronze, another was copper, another was lead, another was steel, another was brass, and the last was tin? In that case, the links you have don't even belong to the same chain! So you're even further from completing some ethereal chain!

As tissue specimens are collected and gene-mapped, we are able to tear apart each link and discover what it's made of. If one link's genome is 600,000 "base pairs" long (the size of some bacteria), while another link's is 3 billion "base pairs" long (the size of a mouse or human's), then they can't be from the same "chain" of decendency (and this ignores the coding of the base pairs!).

To a member of the genomics or bioinformatics community, sorting out which link belongs to which chain is as simple as is sorting pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters for you and I.

Scientists know that they don't have anything like a singular, cohesive chain. But they are slaves to their masters in the scientific community. If they want to be published or promoted, they must tow the line and pretend to be as confident in evolution as all their peers pretend to be. It's too bad that a few more honest scientists won't step up and declare the weakness of or at least question the accepted dogma. In our age of communication, haven't we had enough demagoguery?

For my part, I'd sooner buy a "gold" chain from a guy named "glitz" on a Chicago street corner than what Darwinists are selling.

Altered Beast: Looks-like Doesn't Mean Is-like

Genetics are a wonderful thing! We all have 'em!

In addition to giving humanity hundreds of new and effective medicines, genetics research has also debunked a number of old wives tales that have plagued history through the ages, such as the Cooks Arrow fable, claiming that a Hawaiian arrow head was carved out of the bone of British explorer, Captain James Cook.
Another mighty exploit of genetics research is to finally bring down another fable of slightly greater proportions: Evolution.

Genetics is the bane of Darwinists! Just when everything seemed to be going their way, Francis Crick had to come along and discover DNA, now known to be the building blocks of life on earth. When discovered, Genetics was the hope of Darwinists to finally stamp out the arcane beliefs of the superstitious population of earth (i.e. religious people). Through mathematical probabilities, it should be simple to show the phylogeny of "related" species down through time. Yet, the hopes of Darwinists shortly gave way to fatalism in face of the evidence (which is why evolutionary bilogoists don't dwell on it).

This quote appeared in the magazine Science, November 1980:

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomeno of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.

How damaging has genetic research been to the evolutionary faith? First consider this Coelacanth and Lungfish are (still) considered to be close relatives, as well as link-species in the lineage of the recently discovered Tiktaalik roseae. But the 1997 mappings of their genomes has not bourn out this classification. In an article discussing the problems of Clelacanth-Lungfish progeny, the Lungfish genome is found to be at least 35 times larger than Coelacanths:

Noonan said that coelacanth’s close relative, the lungfish, could also fill in the genetic gap between land animals and fish, but the coelacanth has one practical advantage: “The lungfish genome is enormous,” said Noonan, who is now a postdoctoral fellow at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. At 35 times the size of the human genome, sequencing the lungfish is an unlikely proposition. In contrast, the coelacanth genome is smaller than that of either humans or mice.

So by genetic (true scientific) ways of reconning, Coelacanth and Lungfish are about as related as Ecoli bacteria and elephants!! If you don't like my conclusions, listen to the observations of another scientist out of SanDiego, CA:

Upon reviewing the molecular phylogenetics it is quite clear that the relationship between teleosts, tetrapods, coelacanths and lungfish is not resolved. Different datasets tend to support different hypotheses, and generally none of the separate datasets, or even combined data, deliver really decisive support for a single tree. There are obviously many gene specific molecular evolutionary artefacts. The project could expect to resolve the phylogeny, and as this has been used as a test case, would contribute to improved models of gene evolution underlying phylogenetic analyses - possibly better algorithms.

So in spite of the evidence that their theories are completely wrong and disproved, they still hold on to the belief that there is an evolutionary model out there, yet to be discovered, that holds the key to consistency between evolutionary taxonomy and documented genetics.

Evolutionists use nice paintings and simplistic drawings to show what, to the casual observer, appears to be clear descendency of species from protozoa to modern man. But in the face of genetic evidence, their theories fall like Enron stock prices!

I would assert, I think reasonably, that related species must have related genomes. If the genomes are widely different, then the species cannot be related. I would further assert that no animal species is closely related to man. Man is the special creation of God, set apart, and in God's image. Any superficial resemblances with Chimpanzes are just that: superficial.

In all likelyhood, the dogs are related to each other. The cats are related to each other. The apes are related to each other. The ants are related to each other. But the ants are not related to the apes which aren't related to the cats which aren't related to the dogs (and would tell you so if they could talk).

Missing Link: Transitional Species Debunked

Debunked is probably too strong a word, but those that broker in the truth shouldn't have a hard time picking out nonsense and propaganda when they see it! Below is my thoughts on the latest discovery by scientists of what they are calling a transitional species between water-bound fish and land-roaming (terra-ferma) amphibian. It was written in response to an email from a friend directing me to an article on slashdot.com that announced this discovery:

Hey Jason,

How are things?

I thought you would like this recent article from the athestic anarchists at slashdot....

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/06/0217250

Alan

My response:

Alan,

Things are pretty good. I do miss Unishippers sometimes. Things there were more practical than here working for the government. It sure is nice to drive 15 minutes to work though (on a clear day with no construction!).

I read this article a few days ago in 3 different forms. I had to laugh, though at their outlandish speculation. I like your description of them: “athestic anarchists”. If you read carefully, there is no real evidence that this is a missing-link species. Consider these telling observations:

1. In the 2nd paragraph, they say that this find is in the class of Archaeopteryx which, they assert, bridged the gap between birds and reptiles. Problem is, there’s no evidence whatsoever that Archaeopteryx was anything other than just a bird. The whole body of evidence for Archaeopteryx being a bridge species is that they found it in a NE Chinese rock formation (Yixian) that, they asserted, predated the evolution of birds. Since birds didn’t evolve yet, they assert, Archaeopteryx must have been at least partly dinosaur! Interesting logic. If you’d found precisely the same fossil in strata that was dated, they assert, at say 300,000 years, then they would have said it was a new species of bird. But because of the strata it was found it, it must have been part dinosaur. What Archaeopteryx actually was is bedrock proof that birds were around as contemporary with the dinosaurs that supposedly turned into birds (a very new theory, even as evolution goes).
2. They also called it a “crocodile-like” animal. Well, if it’s like a crocodile, then why liken it to a fish!
3. The people who classified the find said it “probably had both gills and lungs”. Well that would certainly support their claims! But they didn’t find gills or lungs. All soft tissue was decayed an absorbed by the surrounding rock. No soft tissue survived (or normally does)! It really was just mindless conjecture to plant a picture in reader’s minds that would tend to support their claims that this animal was a transitional form.
4. I love this paragraph: Tiktaalik - the name means "a large, shallow-water fish" in the Inuit language Inuktikuk - shows that the evolution of animals from living in water to living on land happened gradually, with fish first living in shallow water.” So a name they gave the animal is evidence of evolution? Huh?!?
5. They say it had a “more primitive jaw”. Again, how do they know what a primitive jaw would look like. How do they know that a different jaw is a “more primitive jaw”. Imagine if they applied this logic to humans! Are blacks or aboriginal more primitive? Are Caucasian characteristics more modern? Pure racism. Darwinism is the basis for much of modern racism, as well as anti-Semitism. Again, baseless assertions.
6. Keep in mind that they didn’t discover through this find that fish crawled onto land. They “knew” that long before! The previous claim was the Coelacanth. They asserted that it’s fleshy fins would have allowed it to climb out of the water and go for short strolls. They had asserted dozens of things that they knew about the behavior and significance of the Coelacanth, and then they found some swimming around. Now there are 7 locations across 1000+ miles of the Indian Ocean that refute every claim they ever made about the behaviors of Coelacanth. Before, they were only 100% sure. But now, they’re 100% sure!!
7. Click here to read the description of the American Crocodile. It has webbed feet, scales, and (not in this article, 2 lines of rigid fins down it’s back and tail. How does this make it a fish?
8. Otters, seals, sea lions, manatees, beavers, alligators, crocodiles, caiman and many other species go between land and sea, this doesn’t make any of them “transitional forms”.
9. When they say: “Tiktaalik blurs the boundary between fish and land-living animal both in terms of its anatomy and its way of life”. This is raw assertion. They found this fossil less than a month ago, and they claim to already know it’s “way of life”??? This is preposterous! If their brand of science was employed by CSI, every criminal would get off and every prosecutor would be in jail for contempt. This is not even circumstantial evidence; it’s something worse.
10. What they didn’t find: They didn’t even find the back half of the animal (though that didn’t stop them from drawing/painting/modeling it). The back half could easily shatter their theories. They didn’t find, nor could they, any evidence that this fish actually lived in shallow water, ever left the water, ever went in the water, ever anything. It’s all a total fabrication, as is all their retelling of 300 million years ago.
11. If evolutionists want to prove their theories, they won’t do it by asserting that one species looks like a cross between species A and species B. They’d have to do it by showing that evolution beyond the borders of the “kind” can happen. Of this, there are NO examples! While men range in height from 21 inches to 9+ feet, they don’t turn into anything other than men! Darwinists the world over are dancing on what they think is the grave of “intelligent design” (they say), but they haven’t made one inch of headway!
12. When scientists have tried to assert relationships between variant species, it looks plausible on the surface. But when you look at anatomy (where available), and the genome (where available), their theories break down quickly. They have totally disprove most of what they used to believe about even the simplest species of bacteria. When examining the genomes, they found out that they were far more different than originally thought.
13. What the scientists found was not a “developing species” like they try to portray through slight of hand. What they found was a fully-functioning species in it’s own right. I would assert (with equal authority, i.e. pulled it out of my ear, that what they found was merely an extinct species of whatever. Keep in mind that the notion of taxonomy and “species” was made up by a man (Carl Linnaeus) in the 1700's based solely on superficial resemblances. By their ways of reckoning, a turtle is more closely related to a rock than a person! The “species” are not related the way evolutionists assert. They are very wrong and they prove it daily. They just don’t admit it. Note: Linnaeus beleived in creation.
    

Anyway, that’s just my thoughts off hand. I haven’t researched this deeply like I’d like to do some time. Unfortunately, the people who discovered this find are being very tight lipped about the find, and only supplying details and photos that would seem to support their assertion. They’ve learned by experience that if you can get the majority of the scientific community to buy into it before releasing the rest of the find, it’s highly unlikely than any amount of contrary evidence will change their minds later. No one likes to admit they’ve been duped!

Hope all is well at Unishippers!!

Altered Beast: So Much From So Little

I love a good suspense story just as much as anyone. Y'know, the kind where the hero is entombed in an inescapable prison that is shortly to become his grave! But then, at the last remaining second he produces from a hidden compartment in his highly polished wingtip shoes the one weapon for which the sinister villain had composed no contingency: a paper clip! The hero somehow cracks open a circuit box, uses the paper clip to short circuit the building's electronic security system, and opens a way of escape that not even he knew was there!

There's something heroic about someone who can take nothing and nothing and make something of it. Such is the case with the latest dino-discovery in southern-Utah's Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument, newest addition to America's menu of wilderness lands. When University of Utah graduate students went exploring for dinosaur bones, they came across unequivocal evidence of the truthfulness of evolution!! What was it? A new species of dinosaur (74-76 million years old) that was a clear transitional form between the raptor family of dinosaurs and modern birds. It was complete with blue feathers, a large tail-feather ploom reminiscent of Cleopatra, a large toothless beak, long arms that were destined to someday become wings, and several other distinguishing features designed to let heroic paleontologists of the future know that this dinosaur wanted to be a bird, but surgical options weren't available (or no health insurance).

So what must it have been like, there at the dig sight as these UofU graduate students hushed to silence as one young Darwinists brushed aside the red-brown dirt with a super-delicate paint brush-looking-thing to reveal the never-before-seen blue feathers? I can almost hear the gasps for air as a handful of dirt was swished aside to reveal the bright-yellow toothless beak, a huge, newly-evolved advantage in an age of huge meat-eating predators because...er...uh. Anyway, I wonder if anyone expected the array of colors or radial arrangement of the tail feathers that comprised the great animal's tail?

Er...what? They didn't find any blue feathers? Oh, not any feathers at all? Well what about the yellow beak? No??! Well, surely the long arms, then? No!!??!! Just hand and foot bones? Well how do they even know they were from the same animal? Oh, they don't?

Well, this story seems to have been a non-starter folks. Sorry for the alarm. It seems they only found a few hand bones and a few foot bones and decided to heroically conjecture (see "pulled out of shoe") the rest into existence. I too am embarrassed at this much-ado-about-nothing. It seems that our paleo-psychotic friends were again suffering from exposure, can easily happen down there with the highest UV index in the country. Seems they used the hand bones and a cross-reference to some bird uncovered in China to assert that they were, um...related. Apparently they weren’t any better at border enforcement 75 million years ago.

So I wonder what they intended to prove with all that conjecture and bone-reading? Ooooh. Evolution again. But I thought it was already proven? Why are they still trying to prop up that old theory? Why don't some of them fork off and try to prove something more useful, like gravity or entropy or something?

The lesson, kids is this. When scientists claim to have discovered some huge thing that finally shows the Bible to be wrong and God to be dead, read the fine print.

Altered Beast: Feathered Dinosaurs

Feathered dinosaurs...now there's a concept. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it seems like every dinosaur uncovered suddenly has "evidence" of feathers. Until recently, dinosaurs were thought to have had rough, heavy skin since they were "reptiles, not lizards". But then the most amazing thing happened: they found a dinosaur with feathers (dramatic music here)! So, they uncovered a fossil of an ancient specimen of a dinosaur with skin, feathers and small teeth! Did you find it at the pond? Um...it might have been a Canadian Goose...just thinking out loud here.

No, really! Scientists put out material, including full-motion 3D animated films designed for children showing with complete certainty that dinosaurs evolved into birds. One documentary I saw showed 3D dinosaurs morphing into birds; something that's much easier to do on computers than in the real world. But among themselves, they still hotly debate the evidence that badly contradicts itself. In one frank statement, a North Carolina professor said:

Not everyone agrees. "Vegavis was originally described as belonging to an extinct group; now all of a sudden it's a duck," says Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina, who proposed the big bang idea.

Yixian's birds have scarcely helped. The 20 or so species have a bewildering mix of primitive and advanced features - the toothed jaws and long tails of dinosaurs, plus the short tails and horny beaks of modern birds. The controversy will only be solved when more fossils come to light.

Do you mean there's controversy within the scientific community? Then aren't the 3D movies kinda' jumping the gun a bit? Now I can at least understand this sort of journalistic infidelity from the New York Times. After all, they're trying to beat the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post to the punch. Minutes matter in their field. But I don't understand this sort of "jumping the gun" from scientists who are studying topics that they believe span billions of years of evolution! Shouldn't "getting it right" trump "getting it fast" where scientific discovery is concerned?

The similarities between "feathered dinosaurs" and modern birds are so striking that to call them anything else but birds is kind of a leap. Their only reasons for calling them feathered dinosaurs are that they were buried in rock that Darwinists claim is a hundred+ million years old, which is before birds evolved! Now isn't that scientific (rhetorical "no.")!

Imagine a forensic pathologist is studying a murder crime scene (I know, ...more symmetry than analogy!), and decides that the victim has been dead for approximately 48 hours based on certain physical hints. Then, a young lieutenant produces a surveillance video tape from the hallway camera that details the struggle and subsequent murder, as well as contains a time-date index in the upper right corner of the film showing the murder to be only 6 hours earlier. So the investigator asserts the only logical conclusion: the body must have fallen into a time-altering worm hole that caused the body to experience 48 hours decay in only 6 hours! No! The only logical conclusion is that the forensic pathologist was wrong. The indicators that he relied upon to form his conclusions were wrong!

This is precisely the kind of leaps that evolutionary biologists and paleontologists routinely rationalize. They see feathers in a fossil that they've always thought pre-dated the evolution of birds. So they conclude exactly the wrong thing: that dinosaurs turned into birds. From the evidence, birds obviously did exist along side the dinosaurs. Their rationalizations that dinosaurs turned into birds are nonsensical, nearly random unless you also take into account their unwavering belief in evolution itself. These sorts of illogical rationalizations permeate all of modern evolutionary sciences. The formula basically looks like this: Since evolution is definitely true, whatever conclusion satisfies the truthfulness of evolution, however unlikely, must, therefore be true (a twist on Sherlock Holmes).

The gradual development of feathers also violates evolutionists assertion that evolution happens through long series of beneficial changes, often imposed by environmental factors. Feathers served no purpose until they were at a point where they could be used to fly. Why would dinosaurs carry around non-beneficial feathers for millions of years while unable to make use of them? Perhaps they were anticipating flight? "I know they're hot sweetie, but someday your great, great, great grandchickens will be able to fly"...oh wait.

Perhaps God created them the way they are. Did dinosaurs have feathers? Perhaps, but not because they evolved that way. They'd have them for the same reason that chickens, turkeys, ostriches, emus still have them today: because God liked them that way.

Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Missing Link: My Gap Theory

Ever notice how scientists always claim to fill some colossal gap in the fossil record and, thus, the human evolutionary chain? What's interesting is that they never really admit such a gap exists until they discover some "transitional form" that fills in the afore unmentioned gap! Scientists give the impression that the fossil record is pretty much complete, and speaks with one voice about the origins of man. But when you catch them in a frank moment (y' gotta' be pretty alert), they sometimes admit how sparsely the fossil record is populated.

Their theories about how fossils are made (casual, every-day circumsces) are just flat wrong. Creationists, on the other had, believe the majority of the fossils were created through cataclismic events. The Bible has a great explanation about how the fossils got here. It's called the flood of Noah. Of course, the last thing (and I mean, the very last thing) that scientists want to do is lend credibility to something so "unscientific" as the Bible. Yet, given what an evolutionist expects to find, the fossil record is terribly "incomplete".

To use an analogy that we can understand, let's imagine that we wanted to write a thesis on the topic of what people wore in the 1980's; and so we hire a research firm to give us all available photographic records of people walking down a populated street in down town New York City in the '80's. The evolutionists on the project believe that there were clear and constant video feeds that should render a very complete record of everyone who ever walked down that street. The creationists, on the other hand, believe that the only record was from occasional snapshots taken by tourists on the street and city survey teams that were working on a re-surfacing project for the city public works department. Well, after a few weeks, the research company comes back with around a hundred snapshots that represent only fractions of a second from about once every few months during the '80's. Only about 10 seconds of lens exposure was recorded in all the photos combined. The creationists on the project are delighted with the quality of the prints and the broad sampling available to them to write their thesis. The evolutionists on the team, however, are irate that only 100 snapshots could be salvaged from the many video cameras and millions of miles of film that they believe should be available from the '80's.

So the creationists believe that all the available photographic artifacts were recorded during only a tiny portion of time compared to the decade being studied. The evolutionists, on the other hand, believe that the available photographic artifacts are a full and complete record of everyone that passed by for a full ten years.

Well, that's the situation that we have with the fossil record. Creationists are delighted with the snapshots that make up the fossil record. They are fascinated by the variety and broad representative sampling available to them. They know that the fossil record only represents a few moments in time when the conditions were right for forming fossils. They don't believe in the transition from one kind of plant or animal into another, thus they don't see any "gaps".

Evolutionists, however, who fashion themselves the stewards of the fossil record, are puzzled. They hide their embarrassment at the incompleteness of the fossil record given what they expected to find based upon their theories. They contrive fancy theories as to why skin sometimes fossilizes just fine, but whole species groups, such as marine animals constructed mostly of cartilage, don't. They come up with far-fetched ideas to explain why the layers of strata as they believe them to be, aren't found anywhere in the world, and when found, are often found out of order! They have no explanations for some anomalies such as why many petrified trees are standing right through their precious layers of strata that are supposed to be composed of build up and sediment from millions of years per layer! They come up with complex systems of relationships between disparate species and try to classify every new find as a "gap filler". They entertain B-class contrivances to help explain why some things vanished and where other things came from (see dinosaurs to birds) given no previous fossil record of those species. They've learned that ridicule is a powerful tool, and that by speaking with a unified voice (see global cooli...er...warming), the majority of people will be intimidated into asking few questions.

Creationists are increasingly less intimidated by the poor logic and naked faith of the evolutionary, pseudo-scientific world. As science advances, many of scientists' original beliefs fall to new evidence. Yet their faith continues. Each generation of scientist thinks he's an authority and scoffs at Christians. Yet the next generation of scientist comes along and disproves the last generation of scientists, claims to "really know", and, again, scoffs at the Bible. When you consider this pattern throughout modern history, the Christian you see over there quaking in front of an ape-man display at the Field Museum in Chicago, is probably just chuckling.

See this article for an example of research and interpretation that counters what the lemmings of the scientific community suggest.